[Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> Wed, 22 June 2011 22:00 UTC
Return-Path: <mark.edward.davis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864C911E80AB for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.992
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.992 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xn6+9xz27gsr for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A147511E8085 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yie30 with SMTP id 30so757946yie.31 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GfbXvwZI4smjajjfy3HSVEkKaQjimrdJwhgndZi0QbY=; b=altrt0C3c4Go5pML/TgqERHyi12HXOHvBtQNhiupOybjPaPb5kp8oRWoc2Uujvr2Ni QN90cfkclI5MfqjgAnGG8SCVZspuGCwXYIZQ+x69zW9PKvl06AKQzDXWR9pVLeCsP1Lw LgRgBIy9ZGMP7Hvk9ycQNw0lG1369deK8a5Mo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; b=GNBBZum4AdZ1cRnDZLsvE3O3XjHDWoa0r+34bZ2XzFkb/az/sDlPkWshDZv1SMzWXr Ob3Fuj8U2oGOmpE3UWBgyuChiMjErzIEHAX5WyEKDMVN+8qsGlI+3y5l2nmMJYrL/ddS VWsXayBMeCpzIbfYqG8zJwEerTgs0F+AdQ3ZQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.111.10 with SMTP id o10mr1449472ybm.80.1308780047777; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.151.146.9 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:00:47 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ptthyoqznVn7Lbw5AVnFUlEHV5Y
Message-ID: <BANLkTin1hwmPAq4p7rUfKD0TtkvLXPHUrA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001517574434d63f0704a65419d4"
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, court@infiauto.com
Subject: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 22:00:50 -0000
A new draft posted at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-01 Martin, we tried to address your concerns; please take a look and let us know what you think. Mark *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:00, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> wrote: > Those are good issues; thanks for raising them and starting the discussion. > Comments below. > > ------------------------------ > Mark > *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 23:39, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>wrote: > >> Hello Mark, others, >> >> Overall comment: >> The idea to reuse language tags to indicate transliteration/transcription >> source, and to add some additional tags to distinguish methods seems to be >> reasonable and sound. >> >> The description of the structure of the allowed subtags and of the >> responsibility split between IETF (this draft) and UTC (UTS 35) looks quite >> messy to me, and should be cleaned up. I'd personally prefer that UTS 35 (or >> whatever else on the Unicode side) only define the <mechanism> part (after >> the m0 subtag). >> > > That would be my preference as well (can't speak for my coauthors). > > We patterned it this way following what ended up being accepted for the > -u- extension. That is, the spec is in UTS35, but there is a summary here. > But of course, there are many ways to do it. And maybe this summary is too > detailed, at least for the mechanism part, and we could just have it in > UTS35. > > We considered a number of alternatives: > > - We could define everything after -t- to be the source language, and > everything after -m- to be the mechanism. But that burns 2 extension > letters, just one. > - We also considered having everything in the -u extension, for which > we already have the structure set up. However, that would force us to have > artificial source subtags like 'en0' instead of 'en', because the -u- > extension wouldn't allow the 2-letter subtags (it already defines a use for > them). > - We could also have -t- be just the source, and define the mechanism > in -u-, also easy. But we felt it would be better to have everything under > one extension. > > > >> >> >> Detailled comments: >> >> "In addition, it may also be important to >> specify a particular specification for the transformation.": Too much >> 'spec' in one sentence. >> > > ok > > >> >> "For example, if one is transcribing the names of Italian or Russian >> cities on a map for Japanese users, each name will need to be >> transliterated into katakana using rules appropriate for the source >> language and target languages.": "source languages and target language"? >> > > yes > > >> >> BCP47 required information: The first three paragraphs should move to the >> introduction. >> > > Other authors, what do you think? > > >> >> "followed by a sequence of subtags that would form a language tag": Here >> and in general: Don't use 'would'. >> > > Grammatically, it is that the sequence of subtags *would* form a language > subtag if they *were* separated out. They are not actually a language tag, > because they occur in the middle of another language subtag. How would you > like that to be phrased? > > > > >> >>>> >> The structure of 't' subtags is determined by the Unicode CLDR >> Technical Committee, in accordance with the policies and procedures >> in http://www.unicode.org/**consortium/tc-procedures.html<http://www.unicode.org/consortium/tc-procedures.html>, >> and subject >> to the Unicode Consortium Policies on >> http://www.unicode.org/**policies/policies.html<http://www.unicode.org/policies/policies.html> >> . >> >>>> >> >> >> The following paragraph is also difficult to understand. I wouldn't know >> exactly what falls on what side. I think one major reason is that we are >> treading new ground here, it's the first time we have a singleton definition >> that allows reuse of language tags (with a few restrictions) as well as >> intends to define its own extensions. >> > > These were both patterned after what was used for the -u- extension. We can > take a look at them to try to clarify. > > > >> >> >>>> >> Changes that can be made by successive versions of LDML [UTS35] by >> the Unicode Consortium without requiring a new RFC include the >> allocation of new subtags for use after the 't' extension. A new RFC >> would be required for material changes to an existing 't' subtag, or >> an incompatible change to the overall syntactic structure of the 't' >> extension; however, such a change would be contrary to the policies >> of the Unicode Consortium, and thus is not anticipated. >> >>>> >> >> 2.1 Summary: There seems to be quite some overlap between the part of >> section 2 before the 2.1 heading. >> >> >> One question I would have as a linguistic researcher is: How much effort >> and time is involved in getting a 'mechanism' approved? If such 'mechanisms' >> are e.g. rejected with arguments like "if we accept it, then everybody has >> to implement it" or so, then I would see that as a problem. >> > > Good point. I'll propose some text. > > >> >> So much for the moment. >> >> >> Regards, Martin. >> >> >> >> On 2011/06/18 6:07, Mark Davis ☕ wrote: >> >>> Yoshito, Addison, and I had had an action for a while now from the CLDR >>> committee to submit a draft for a an extension. Rather than go through >>> all >>> the problems in the falk draft, we put together an alternative approach, >>> leveraging the work we already did for the -u- extension. >>> >>> It just got posted at >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-00<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-00> >>> >>> Courtney, I think this provides a superset of the functionality that you >>> are >>> interested in. Perhaps you can read it over, and we can add you as an >>> author >>> of the next version of this draft instead of having the two competing >>> proposals. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:50, Randy Presuhn >>> <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>**wrote: >>> >>> Hi - >>>> >>>> I started out with an off-list response, but I figure this is >>>> something worth sending to the list. >>>> >>>> Off-list, a contributor asked: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> I'd love to see your input. I'd like to make sure I understand >>>>> all the concerns. Is there any way you could forward this to the list? >>>>> >>>> >>>> My response: >>>> >>>> Sorry, already deleted. As I recall, the main concerns were >>>> >>>> (1) there already *is* support for identifying orthographies >>>> (remember German?) >>>> (2) the I-D seems to assume that transliterations always result >>>> in "Latin" (previous discussion on LTRU included transliterations >>>> to Cyrillic and Hangul, among others) >>>> (3) the "original orthography" is irrelevant for the transliteration >>>> systems I've been able to think of. (At the same time, some >>>> transliteration systems are quite "lossy" and some don't do >>>> "round trip" very well.) Consider also the transliteration of >>>> material >>>> which was originally in audio form... >>>> (4) The draft doesn't clearly distinguish "orthography" from >>>> "transliteration". >>>> This may be because the boundary between the two can be fuzzy, but >>>> even >>>> that is an issue that should be addressed. >>>> (5) How this fits in with *transcription* systems (e.g. IPA) should be >>>> addressed. The boundary gets fuzzy with orthographies that are >>>> equivalent >>>> to phonemic representations of the language. (e.g., Pinyin for >>>> Mandarin) >>>> (6) The proposed singleton usage appears broken and unnecessary. >>>> >>>> Or something like that. I may have forgotten something here, or, in the >>>> process of reconstruction, thought of something I missed the first time. >>>> >>>> Randy >>>> >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> Ltru mailing list >>>> Ltru@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ltru<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Ltru mailing list >>> Ltru@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ltru<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru> >>> >> >
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Pete Resnick
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Pete Resnick
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Kent Karlsson
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext doug
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Broome, Karen
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Kent Karlsson
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Felix Sasaki
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Jukka K. Korpela
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext CE Whitehead
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext CE Whitehead
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext CE Whitehead
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Avram Lyon
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Gordon P. Hemsley
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext yoshito_umaoka
- [Ltru] Fw: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext yoshito_umaoka
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕